LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2004

The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, October 28, 2004, at the Village Hall.  

The meeting was called to order by Richard Fernandez, Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present:

 

ITEM I ROLL CALL: 

 

Richard Fernandez, Chairman

Tim Crutchfield (Arrived at 7:03 P.M.)

Donald Shockey (Arrived at 7:25P.M.)

W. Robert Abramitis

Cesar Sastre

 

ALSO PRESENT:

Al Berg, Planning & Zoning Director  

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary

Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting.

The Board members disclosed that they had visited all of the sites. Mr. Crutchfield disclosed that he had visited 9055 Biscayne Blvd, 128 NE 99 St, 9495 Biscayne Blvd, 9519 NE 2nd Ave, and 1167 NE 99 St.

ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES- September 23, 2004 and October 14, 2004.

Mr. Sastre made a motion to approve the September 23, 2004 minutes. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the October 14, 2004 minutes. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

ITEM III: SCHEDULE ITEMS

 

 

PZ04-1028-01

CVS Pharmacy (tenant)
Boris Moroz (owner) 
Shores Square  
9055 Biscayne Blvd.

Section 604: Site plan approval
sign, Sect. 504(f)(1): requesting
cabinet sign, detached sign, and
under-canopy sign

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the projecting sign as submitted. Staff recommends a smaller wall sign of 2' letters which will be more consistent with the rest of the shopping center. With regard to the detached sign, staff recommends denial based on the owner's commitment toward removal of the sign in its entirety. The applicant is requesting a site plan approval for a wall sign and a projecting sign to be erected on the wall of the building and a detached sign on Biscayne Blvd. Mr. Berg explained that there was a Code Enforcement issue in regards to the monument sign. The applicant, Shannon Fross, was there on behalf of Boris Moroz and CVS Pharmacy to present the case. Ms. Fross explained the intent of the signs and all the measurements and colors proposed. She stated that reducing the wall sign will cause an off-balance issue. The Board discussed the size of the wall sign and its relation. They were concerned that the purpose of the size of the wall sign was to attract people from Biscayne Blvd. Ms. Fross confirmed that the size is only for aesthetics purposes. They also discussed the Code Enforcement issue in regards to the pole sign. Three motions were made for the signs. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the projecting sign. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the wall sign as submitted. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Abramitis agrees that changing the size of the wall sign might cause an off balance issue on the sign but he is concerned that approving the sign will cause a grandfather-in size for future wall signs on the location. After a brief discussion, the motion passed 3-2 (Mr. Abramitis and Mr. Fernandez voted no). Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the monument sign since there is a Code Enforcement issue pending. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

 

 

PZ04-1028-02

Christina Ricci (owner)
128 NE 99 St.

Section 701: Appeal of the Admin.
Official – Paint.

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and denied the permit application. Staff feels that the paint color is too dark for the house and is not harmonious with the neighborhood. The property owner, Christina Ricci, was there to present the case. Ms. Ricci stated that the color she proposed is harmonious with the style of the house. Some of the members stated that the colors should be reversed. The dark color should be the trim and the light color should be the base for the walls. Other Board members stated that the colors match with the style of the house. If Ms. Ricci could prove that the original color of the house was a dark color, she might have a better chance of getting the application approved. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sastre made a motion to

approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Crutchfield voted no)

 

 

PZ04-0826-02

Fla. City Industrial Lands            
Jorge Lopez, President modification of previous elevation
9495 Biscayne Blvd.

Sect. 604: Site plan approval-
(one story to two story), new pool

The applicant came before the Board in August 26, 2004 seeking approval for a one story element at the south end of the property. A two story element was added without approval. The applicant is now seeking site plan approval for the two story addition and he is requesting approval for a driveway in the front, as well as a pool on the side. He indicated that the plans that were drawn had to be changed because the design would not work. The experts said it was impossible to build the house with the original plans. The Board asked that the applicant produce expert testimony regarding the roof trusses and the design. The South elevation has additional windows with stucco sills, balustrades, new roofs over the door and windows to reduce massing, and some circular features on the second floor elevation. The front elevation has had balustrades and additional concrete elements around the windows. Staff recommends rejecting the driveway for a better design and approving the pool. Depending on the opinion of the design professional regarding the two story addition that was done without approvals, staff has no recommendation. The property owner, Jorge Lopez, and Robert Coba, a registered engineer and contractor, was also there to present the case. Mr. Lopez explained the reason why the second story was done without approval. Mr. Coba explained that the height difference from the edge of the wall and the other connecting wall was too great to be able to build the roof that way. The only way the roof could be done is by constructing a terrace outside which the owner does not want to do. Mr. Coba stated that he did not seal the original plans. The Board discussed several alternatives that the owner could have chosen. Mr. Lopez agreed that he had other options but that he chose to not use them. Mr. Coba and Mr. Lopez explained that they went to several companies to try to find the best alternative solution without changing the design, but that they all agreed that nothing could be done. He admitted to doing the second story without a permit but he believed that the change would not be too drastic to need another approval. The Board members discussed the design of the property. The Board members inquired about the owner taking action against the person that design the original plans. Mr. Lopez stated that the person was retired and that he would never go after him. The Board members inquired about the missing elevations in the plans. In the photograph of the property there is a plane on the roof that does not show in the elevations presented. The Board stated that they could not approve a site plan that does not show all the elevations. Mr. Lopez admitted that all the roof elevations are not properly shown on the site plan. The Board members stated that they were going to table the case until Mr. Lopez could bring accurate drawings showing all the elevations of the property and the roof, including the pool, the driveway, the existing wall, and a landscaping plan. They also expressed that the details that were approved on the original plans were the ones that they wanted on the revised plan. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to table the case. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

 

 

PZ04-1028-03

Shores Village Partner (owners)          
Ruben Matz
9519 NE 2nd Ave.

Sec. 604: Site plan approval
Sec. 400/401: new use, signs

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the interior renovation. More information is needed on the size of the proposed signs, the color of the awning, and the color of the lettering. Staff is also concerned with the lack of drainage plan, landscaping plan, and green space in the park area, as well as two detached signs. The new owner is requesting approval for a change of exterior frontage on all sides of the building and remodeling of the interior space. The new use, which has not been disclosed, will probably require the same amount of parking currently on the site. Mr. Sklar from Sklarchitecture and the new Bennet Building owner, Ruben Matz, were there to present the case. Mr. Sklar explained all the detailed changes proposed for the frontage of the building and the remodeling. The Board members expressed their concerns in regards to the missing landscaping plan for the property, a floor plan, a parking lot plan including drainage, and a signage plan. They also expressed their concerns about not knowing what type of businesses would occupy the renovated spaces. Mr. Matz stated that he did not know who the tenants will be. He also explained the proposed changes in regards to the signage on the building but he did not have a signage plan. Some of the Board members wanted to approve some of the frontage changes such as the awnings and the signs. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the change in the western façade including the proposed navy awning with the ten inch white letter signs on the awning. The awning will not cover the area of the building that has the wooden architectural designs. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion for discussion. The Board members discussed the need to see the landscaping plan, the parking lot plan including the drainage, and the signage plan before approving the project. They did not want to approve the proposed project piece by piece. Mr. Crutchfield withdrew the motion. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Mr. Crutchfield made a new motion to table the case until the applicant brings all the plans requested by the Board. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

 

PZ04-1028-04

John Militana
Online Consignment
8995 Biscayne Blvd.   

Sect. 604: Site plan approval-
new sign

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the request provided that the cabinet sign is reduced in size to 18" x 106" as this is consistent with other signage in the area. The color needs to be clarified. The applicant is requesting approval for a cabinet sign and a window sign. The request is for a 10" logo and name on the door and a 36" x 106" cabinet sign on the front of the building. The business owner was there to present the case. He explained the nature of the business. He stated that the property will only be used as a drop off facility. No merchandise will be sold from the property. He submitted his business card to the Board as a reference of what he wants his cabinet sign to look like. The cabinet sign will be an illuminated white sign with the logo and letters being blue, black, and white. The business card was attached to the application. The Board discussed the proposed size of the cabinet sign. The signage should be used for identification purposes and not for advertisement. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the cabinet sign exactly as shown on the business card with a height no more than 24" and a width no more than 106." There will also be no retail sales or storage goods in plain view and the other window signs on the property must be removed. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion failed to carry 2-3. Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve staff's recommendations with the conditions mentioned by Mr. Crutchfield. 2-4. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Sastre voted no).

 

 

PZ04-0826-07

Jeff and Burnside (owners)            
290 NE 98 St.

 Sec. 604: Site plan approval
 addition

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application. The applicant is requesting site plan approval to add an additional ½ story to the front of the house. The property owner, Jeff Burnside, was there to present the case. Mr. Burnside explained how the proposed addition will be built. No sealed plans were submitted in the package. The Board members discussed the measurements and the design of the addition with the provided information given in the package. They stated that they wanted to see detailed roof plans and floor plans to show how the proposed cylinder shaped addition will be incorporated to the rest of the property. Mrs. Burnside left the meeting to bring the current sealed plans for the addition and submitted them to the Board. Some of the Board members were concerned in approving plans that were currently presented without having a chance to properly review them. Mr. Sastre made a motion to table which was not seconded. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to table and Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion failed 3-2. (Mr. Crutchfield and Mr. Shockey voted yes). After further discussion, Mr. Sastre made a motion to approve staff's recommendations. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion for discussion. Clarification was given in regards to the exact matter that they were moving to approve. The cylinder shaped addition is the only thing that they are approving. Motion passed 3-2. (Mr. Crutchfield and Mr. Shockey voted no).

 

 

PZ04-1028-08

Christian Romeu/Heather Lev

40 NE 91 St.

Sec. 604: Site plan-garage
enclosure

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the application be tabled and restudied in order to improve the appearance of the house in the front with some landscaping and an improved elevation. The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a garage enclosure. Staff suggested that a variation or a break, such as a window, be added to improve the appearance of the house along the extended empty wall in the front. The architect, Mark Campbell, was there to present the case. The property owner, Christian Romeu, was also there to present the case. Mr. Campbell explained that the house has a 1950's design and that the owners did not want to change that therefore the existing facade of the house will not be altered. The garage door will also remain the same. Mr. Campbell explained that a walkway existed in the front of the property before it was enclosed. Mr. Romeu stated that he does not want a walkway. The Board expressed their concern about the extended empty wall and the garage door. Mr. Campbell gave some suggestions on how to break up the wall by possibly adding a row of small windows to the wall. Mr. Romeu also explained that he proposes to improve the design by adding additional landscaping to the property and repainting the house. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Sastre inquired about a 5' landscape between the driveway and the building. The Board members continued to express their concerns about the extended wall and the current garage door. Motion failed to pass 3-3. (Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Abramitis and Mr. Shockey voted no).

IV. DISCUSSION

The reappointments for the new members of the planning and Zoning Board have been delayed. The Board members spoke about how the new appointed members may not be able to discuss the code revisions right after they get appointed.

Mr. Crutchfield stated that it was his opinion the Board acted inconsistently with prior actions when it approved the Burnside application without all relevant elevations being included in the application. Mr. Crutchfield made stated that the Board should make more of an effort to treat applicants equally.

V. NEXT MEETING.

The next meetings will be on November 18, 2004 and on December 16, 2004.

V. ADJOURNMENT

The October 28, 2004 Planning and Zoning meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.